Most people today don’t truly understand evolution. They don’t see the elegance and simplicity of Darwin’s theory. Some find it threatening, and frightening because to science, it is very compelling.
As such, there are a great many mistakes that people make about evolution. One criticism which I often hear leveled at evolution is that scientists believe that we evolved from monkeys, which is to some degree true, in a very round-about way. Actually scientists now seem to agree that we didn’t evolve from monkeys, but from Australopithecus roughly two million years ago. We don’t know exactly when it happened, but this is when scientists believe that the first animal that you could readily identify as an early human came into existence. That’s a very long time ago.
Recorded human history covers approximately six thousand years, from about 4000 BCE or so, to the present year 2007. That’s roughly six thousand years, and our knowledge of those years is very much incomplete, and likely never will be. That means that we have relatively sketchy knowledge of approximately 0.003% of the grand total of human history. Of that two million years, we know less than 1%, of 1% of two million years. We know a fair bit about civilization, we don’t know much about what life was like pre-civilization.
We do however know, that our distant ancestors were identifiable as human beings. We also know that they were not the first humans. Even if we were to halve the figure of two million, we can make a pretty good guess that what we would consider a human relative existed about one million years ago. And there’s still a lot of history that we’re missing, but we can safely conclude that a substantial population of humans lived one million years ago. This means, that for any very religious folks who happen to be reading, that evolution does not say that grandma and grandpa were monkeys; grandma and grandpa were grandma and grandpa. You have always been you, but you’re still an animal, and you’ve been influenced by the animals who are like you that came before you!
Another error that people make concerning evolution is to view it as a ladder, where earlier lifeforms are considered more primitive and therefore inferior to current lifeforms. This is somewhat compelling, on the relatively short term of six thousand years, but really makes no sense over two million years. Scientists maintain that most species which mutate, die. Many adaptations fail. Think of evolution more like duck-hunting. When duck-hunting, one normally uses a shot-gun, and bird-shot ammunition. The goal of bird-shot is not to hit the target with a single bullet, but to create a cloud of shot, a relatively few of which will hit the target. Most of the pellets in a fowling shot don’t hit the duck, but a few do. Evolution creates many adaptations, most of which fail, but a few are successful. So while the ladder anaology doesn’t fit in broader terms it can be seen in more narrow terms, for instance to humans in particular.
And this is where evolution can get somewhat confusing, because though it is not a ladder, every single aspect of the modern human being is some sort of evolutionary adaptation, and as such is helpful for survival. Everything. Take any facet of human life what so ever, and a little bit of thinking allows us to see that it has some sort of evolutionary component. Thus, modern humans while they are free to do as they please on paper, in practice, are to some degree slave to their evolutionary urges and instincts. Every animal on the planet feels the weight of several million years of evolutionary drive pressing down on them, and they must act accordingly, or cease to exist.
Why are there so many people on the planet today? Simply put; humans like to fuck. People have to some degree been denying this one since time immemorial, but human beings love sex. They love having it, they love thinking about it, they love to see it. And even when we’re not thinking about it, we develop elaborate and complex rituals, and mores, and norms which govern, and influence the way that we have sex. And if we didn’t like sex exactly as much as we do, we would not be here. There would be no human civilization what so ever. Think about it. Realize that we’re not really sure that pre-historic humans had an understanding of reproduction. Maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. But we are absolutely certain that pre-historic humans derived roughly the same enjoyment from sex as we do today. We know that pre-historic humans weren’t entirely irrational, and therefore they knew enough that when you thrust a penis into a vagina, it feels pretty good for both involved, and so this activity would be seen as desirable, and therefore repeated until the inevitable were to occur; a pregnancy. You see, early humans didn’t have any need to understand the fine details of human reproduction, evolution had already sorted that one out years ago. Those creatures that had no desire to reproduce did not do so, and so they went extinct. Those that did feel the need to reproduce did so, and so they survived. Those that felt pleasure from the act of reproduction engaged in the act of reproduction a lot, and they thrived, and their numbers increased. That the human sex act is a pleasurable one is an evolutionary adaptation. There are even a whole number of adaptations which are part of the human physiology which exist in order to ensure that we have sex as often as possible, with as many people as possible. Awareness and society do add new considerations to this equation, but at a base level, all of this remains true. Since we are a product of evolution, it only stands to reason that what we see today in society and otherwise is very much guided by evolution. Evolution, with the exception of “reproduce or your species dies” doesn’t give hard and fast rules; it’s a numbers game. If a given set of circumstances is reproduced often enough then a certain result will happen.
Society works on this principle too. Sales is not based on closing every single sale. Advertising relies on promoting a product to as many people as possible, because only a small number will purchase it. Remember the duck-hunting analogy.
That being said, some time ago, someone on the Anti-Misandry forums asked if giving women greater and greater power would result in chaos. Here is the evolutionary answer to that question.
I tend to subscribe to the view that men and women are more or less equal, but fundamentally different, and that gender roles are really supposed to be complimentary and not adversarial as feminism has created. As the media recently reported, with heavy scientific intervention, a woman can have a child on her own, but only another woman, it takes a man to create a man. Thus, as grade school sex-ed teaches, we are indeed fundamentally different on a genetic level. But we’ve evolved to be socially different as well, and two million years of evolution takes a lot longer than a few thousand years to outgrow.
Has anyone ever wondered why women go to the bathroom in groups? This question has been asked many many times, and is normally answered by asserting that while a group of women are in the bathroom they are socializing. But notice that this has answered the wrong question, it has answered WHAT women do, but not WHY they do it. I am going to give an explanation of why. It is a conditioned urge, and by examining a few things we know about ourselves, and the world around us, we can answer this question! We know that on par, women are smaller and generally weaker than men. We also know that human beings have learned that it’s a bad idea to leave human waste lying around since it attracts unpleasant odors, disease etc. We also know, that our distant ancestors likely lived in some sort of sheltered dwelling, without internal plumbing, which was probably an easily defensible, safe position. We also know, that in order to survive, our distant ancestors likely lived in small groups. Therefore, it only stands to reason that our ancestors would relieve themselves some distance away from wherever they might be living. Given that this time frame pre-dates metal tools, it only stands to reason that large ancient African predators might find it rather easy to catch, kill and eat a small, relatively slow-moving ancient human being. Now the men of the time no doubt figured out that their contribution to survival was best served by being the biggest, strongest, and most brutal animal on the continent. A hunter’s senses would have greatly helped a man to survive, maybe even triumph against a large African predator, such as a lion, or hyena. But what about an ancient woman? An ancient woman certainly doesn’t have the strength, or experience of her male counter-part. She simply cannot stand toe to toe with a hungry lion, but she must also relieve herself. It doesn’t take much intelligence however, to realize that most predators do not attack large groups of anything, they prey on the individual few who are old and sick, or young and helpless. A substantial group often makes predators weary, so if people leave the safety of the dwelling in groups, they are less likely to be attacked. Therefore, women especially probably started to leave the dwelling to answer nature’s call, in groups. Those who went
in groups survived more often, and the idea caught on. And that quirk of evolution is still with us today. When the washroom moved into the home in the 20th Century, it was no longer necessary to be afraid of going to the bathroom, but women still go to the bathrooms in public, because in public, the unfamiliar, and may not, at least subconsciously, be entirely safe. Therefore, women go to the bathroom in groups, because they feel compelled to do so.
Yet more proof that evolution is still with us today. So what these subconscious feelings? What do men feel, and how is that different from what women feel?
Men feel loyalty to each other in a group. Does anyone know anything about the US Navy SEALs?
All SEAL duty is voluntary. A SEAL does what a SEAL does because he CHOOSES to do it, not because he is ORDERED to do it. Has anyone ever seen the component SEAL training known as “hell-week”? Basically during, hell-week, which lasts from Sunday to Friday, recruits get four hours sleep, total. They are kept perpetually cold, and wet. One of the stated objectives of SEAL training is to make people fail the course. obviously, successful completion of Hell-Week is meant to instill confidence in the recruits, but it is also used to develop a sense of Esprit de Corps; loyalty, respect and friendship towards others who have experienced the same hardship as the individual. The United States Marines undergo a similar sort of indoctrination. As does every other fighting unit in the world.
Feelings of loyalty towards a man’s companions, his unit, are essential to all military operations. When these feelings are so strong that they inspire increddible acts of altruism to aid one’s companions, governments create medals and decorations to commemorate, and reward these acts of altruism. We call the people who do these things, “heroes.” Most heroes are men, not because women are incapable of altruism, but because men are more team-oriented than women. This is also why men dominate military affairs.
But the roots of this evolutionary instinct go back to early hunting. Since men would sometimes have to venture far away from home, for long periods of time, with only each other for company, they learned to rely on each other both to achieve success in the hunt, and for mutual protection. Remember, humans are slow compared to lions. Observe the way that two men, or a group of men sit together, they do not look at each other, they normally look in the same direction, at something other than each other. Women look each other in the eye. Why do men choose not to look at each other? Because when men are in groups they’re, they’re doing two things; they’re still stalking prey, and they’re still watching out for each other! They are working together for success, and maximizing their safety. It’s subconscious, but it is still present today. And if you watch a heterosexual couple who is courting, they will start looking away from each other, but gradually turn towards each other. Why do women always try for eye-contact, and to see someone’s face? Because the female realm is concerned with building relationships, which will make sure that all the crops are in on time. The male realm is concerned with making sure that the prey is successfully hunted, and that everybody makes it back alive. Thus, the male places a greater value in the strength of the team, since the loss of a single male hunter is considerably greater, than someone who gathers crops. The wheat might be able to wait for one day, the animals wont. Since a team cannot function effectively if one man develops too much ego, humility is also a uniquely male trait.
Since the female places less importance on team effort, her personal sense of value will always tend to be higher than a male’s, and she is therefore less likely to be willing to “take one for the team.” Feminists freely acknowledge that fewer women participate in team sports. Female musicians are also more likely to be individuals, while males are more likely to form a band. Can anyone name any male divas? How many female divas can you name? Men feel compelled to at least partially restrict their egos, but when unrestricted by society women clearly do not.
So what happens when you add feminism? Since feminism generally opposes societal control, it encourages women to act out, and in short order, women’s egos grow out of control. Consider the case of Britney Spears. Contrast this with Trent Reznor. Both need heavy amounts of sound engineering, as well as other musicians to be successful. Yet Britney Spears clearly doesn’t care about anyone who assists her success, it’s all about her. She demands all the attention and all the money, and when she doesn’t get it, she shaves her head, or flashes the paparazzi, just to extend the 15 seconds of fame that she never deserved in the first place. Trent Reznor formed Nine Inch Nails, and even though it is HE, not the other musicians who deserve the credit for changing the face of music today, it is he who was named one of the most influential modern musicians in the world by RollingStone Magazine, he chooses the name of a band, even though he would certainly be just as successful if he was a solo-artist.
What happens when you add feminism, which has removed society’s restrictions on female egos? As egos swell, responsibilities begin to disappear, and as responsibility disappears, loyalty, and humility vanish. Why be loyal if no one will hold you accountable? Feminist message: Why bother making any contributions to society at all, if feminism encourages you to take society for all its worth, and as long as woman is happy, the consequences are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter who you hurt, or who you hate, so if you’re not happy, BLAME MEN! Men are problem-solvers after all, so they should be making you happy, because YOU are all that matters! Since men are problem solvers, (who do you think built the hut when it rained and she was 7 months pregnant?), some man will no doubt clean up the mess.
But of course, heap scorn and misandry on men, add a touch of screwing men over in divorce-court, and sooner or later, they stop caring about women, and they are no longer willing to invest in women, because the investment always results in a loss. Men begin to invest in themselves, often in benign ways, through hobbies, but they no longer are willing to invest in society. The group begins to disperse, man’s esprit de corps is gone, because there’s no longer anything worthy of his attention out there, so he turns inward as well. And as he does so, the group begins to crack, there’s no longer a single direction, and chaos is the result.
Both men and women have unique ways of organizing and mobilizing power, and each other for that matter. In dealing with power, men tend to try to unite, women try to divide. Men by virtue of their role as hunters would need to find it necessary to unite with other men at times, and with the whole group at times to accomplish something, be it relocating, defending the group, what have you. Wherever men go, they tend to achieve some sort of unification with each other. Again, a military is an excellent example of this, as the men of the unit are more ready to identify with the unit than any female counterparts.
Men also thrive with a certain amount of authority and structure, while women do not. The goals of men often must transcend beyond their personal goals, and therefore it is often necessary for men to accept the leadership of other more experienced men to better the chances for success. So when used responsibly, clear direct authority is often the best way to achieve success. However, the abuse of authority has taught men to be weary of those in power, and to watch them to make sure that leaders continue to act in the best interests of the unit. On a relatively small level, this is not difficult at all. Mutiny is one of the highest crimes at sea for a very good reason, and it’s much easier to achieve than say, a revolution at the national level. At a national level, people are much less willing to work together. Unification comes from familiarity, a shared experience, not distance. A shared identity and experience are almost always necessary to mobilize groups of people on a national level. The American Revolution was only possible through intense feelings of shared experience, and even then, there were many, many loyalists who emigrated to Canada.
Women’s roles however, favored division. Have you ever considered how men and women go to the supermarket? Men and women do the groceries in entirely different ways. Men want to be in and out very quickly, while women will stop and consider price, sales,
alternatives etc. But the real telling factor, is in the produce section. Women will examine each piece of fruit they buy in detail before they decide on buying it or not. Women will note even the slightest blemish or discoloration on tomatoes, carrots, apples, etc. Why? Because for men, it didn’t really matter what lay underneath the skin of an animal, the meat would generally retain its nutritious value, as long as the animal was not gravely ill. For women who were concerned with fruit, vegetables and grains, it mattered a lot, because there might be parasites, or you might get ill eating too much unripened fruit. A person’s survival might be dependent on just the color on the fruit. There was even a recent news story which stated that some women see more colours than men, and this should be no surprise what so ever. Women therefore, are very concerned about separating the desirable from the undesirable, and they don’t care in the least about the undesirable. Men value and emphasize the whole, women value and emphasize the individual.
So men, tend to unite, while women divide. In high-schools, there is always a clique of popular girls. We can identify them by those who are not present. We can see female division by looking at feminists especially. Men tend to be concerned with the family unit, the majority as contributing to society. Feminists are concerned with minorities, gays, lesbians, and minorities as determined by race. Men are not concerned about a person’s race, feminists overwhelmingly are. Feminists have openly sought to turn women against men, while men have been playing the marriage game. Feminists have decided that men are undesirable, and either they must change, or be
And thus, give females too much power, and they will divide society, again, and again, and again, until the cohesiveness of the unit is broken, and chaos is the order of the day.
For More of Timber Wolfâ€™s work click:
Originally posted 2007-11-15 16:13:30.